Donald Trump has requested an April 2026 trial date for his federal indictment for 2020 election interference charges connected to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Video: Trump’s legal team seeks to delay federal election case until April 2026
MSNBC
MSNBC
Donald Trump has requested an April 2026 trial date for his federal indictment for 2020 election interference charges connected to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. From Rob Richie, with Eveline Dowling and Juniper Shelley’s assistance, we highlight timely links and stories about democracy at the local, national, and global levels. Today's stories include:
🔁 The primary problem is a lack of general election competition
💡 The case for a constitutional right to vote
🔓 Restoring voting rights to citizens with past felony convictions
🧭 Ballotpedia as a national voter guide
🕓 This week’s timely links
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Before turning to this week’s topics, I wanted to elevate Eveline’s lead story last week on political violence that became all too real last Saturday when an assassin murdered Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark and seriously wounded a state senator and his wife. The Washington Post reported this week on growing fear among state legislators, citing a 2023 survey finding more than 40% had experienced threats.
This New York Times guest essay by Robert Pape had compelling advice: “My research suggests that to de-escalate the political environment and reduce the risk of violence, America’s political leaders need to cross their political divides and make joint statements (and ideally joint appearances) that denounce all political violence, welcome all peaceful protest and call for respecting the rules, process and results of free and fair elections in the country.”
[The Primary Problem. Source: Unite America]
Low voter turnout combined with increased partisanship in primaries has characterized the modern era, resulting in incentives against creative compromises across party lines. An excellent summation of the problem is Unite America executive director Nick Troiano’s 2024 book The Primary Solution. Unite America highlights the shocking reality that, with so many fundamentally safe seats today, 87% of U.S. House elections in 2024 were determined in primaries by merely 7% of Americans.
There are two ways to imagine tackling the problem: reduce the power of current primary voters by increasing turnout and more representative electorates in primaries, or by making those primaries less important than what happens in the general election. Reformers don't have to choose just one path, and I think we should push forward where possible. But there is value in prioritizing what viable change can have the greatest impact. Over the years, including when I developed the partisan voting index and wrote FairVote’s first Monopoly Politics report in 1997, I’ve sought to highlight how unfair and problematic it is when general elections don’t matter.
That insight led me to support the National Popular Vote plan to reform presidential elections – when every vote in every state is counted equally, any close national election will make that vote meaningful, no matter where it is cast. It’s taken years, but backers of the National Popular Vote plan are getting closer to winning this transformative change.
It sparked my interest in creating a unique American approach to proportional representation, one that I think can ultimately succeed – the proportional ranked-choice voting system outlined in the Fair Representation Act, which has been proposed in Congress since 2017. The Fair Representation Act would allow both major parties to contest and likely win in every corner of every state, while smaller parties and independents could hold them accountable and avoid the “spoiler” epithet with a ranked choice voting ballot.
In 2012, it motivated me to propose a Top Four primary system in response to California’s adoption of the Top Two primary. I also supported research that highlighted how many more general elections would offer both genuine voter choice and competition by advancing four candidates to ranked choice voting elections, as currently implemented in Alaska for all its state and congressional elections.
That’s why I’m currently so engaged in advocating for New York City to build on its adoption of ranked choice voting (RCV) for primary elections by moving toward what every other city with RCV does: a single round of voting using RCV. Even as New York has a compelling primary election with RCV on June 24th, a charter commission with deeply respected leadership is seriously considering taking on the primary problem. One option they are considering is to follow the lead of many states by allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries and various forms of all-candidate primaries. This is a sensible voting rights change, although it is unlikely to impact the significance of general elections.
The commission is considering the bolder solution of all-candidate primaries, where the primary serves as a winnowing contest rather than a nomination process. As detailed in my June 10th New York City testimony, I strongly believe that any all-candidate primary proposal in New York should build on the City’s use of RCV by following Alaska’s model with four candidates advancing from the primary. If the commission decides to limit the general election to only two candidates, as in California, there will be a significant number of uncompetitive general elections where one candidate belongs to the majority faction and the other does not - sometimes deliberately manipulated by partisans, as evidenced by Adam Schiff’s campaign for U.S. Senate in California when promoting Republican Steve Garvey. In the rare event that two candidates are viable, a Top Two system will imply one of two possibilities: it’s a politically balanced district where a traditional partisan primary system would similarly foster competition, or the choice has been limited to candidates with ties to the majority. In contrast, a Top Four system would significantly increase the likelihood of having more than one viable candidate and would also offer a broader selection where most voters support at least one candidate.The New York City charter commission’s decision intrigues me even more because the commission has the power to propose related changes that I strongly support—for instance, permitting write-in candidates and allowing candidates to display party and organizational endorsements. The City also has the nation's most vibrant public financing system, which gives more voters the power to compete equitably, even in a system that enhances general election competition.
Going forward, keep that defining question in mind: if seeking to take on the primary problem, what effect will the reform have on the general election?
Nearly every major democracy in the world has a constitutional provision that we lack in the United States: an affirmative protection of the right to vote. Because our Constitution was adopted when voting rights were heavily restricted, there is no such clear right, as our series of pro-suffrage amendments have added particular groups (such as women, African Americans, and 18-year-olds) without fully protecting the voting rights for all adult citizens. This absence creates a dangerous hole in our democracy that allows our federal courts not to center their rulings on voting in a clearly established right.
Election law professor Rick Hasen last year wrote compellingly in A Real Right to Vote about the case for an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution, and I’ve had the good fortune to work with advocates of the proposal for more than two decades. Here’s an excerpt from FairVote’s 2014 policy guide calling for this change:
“Passing a Right to Vote Amendment to the Constitution would uphold our fundamental right to vote. The amendment would empower Congress to set national minimal electoral standards for all jurisdictions to follow, provide greater protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters, and strengthen the impact of state and local laws seeking to uphold suffrage… Past legislation for a right to vote amendment has earned the support of more than 50 Members of Congress ... .States, cities, campuses and NGO’s are starting to pass right to vote resolutions that call for a right to vote amendment and commit to actions to protect, promote and expand suffrage.”
That last expression of activist hope never quite came to fruition despite some promising case studies. Expand Democracy will look for whether it can catalyze action and attention on that combination of federal action, grounded in a local movement for voting rights.
[Leroy Jones, who served his sentence 10 years ago, protests outside a Miami courthouse on April 9, 2003. Source: Frontline]
We’re publishing on Juneteenth, our most recent federal holiday that commemorates the end of slavery, and one with an inspiring activist story featuring now 98-year-old Opal Lee. While incarceration after criminal convictions is far different than the inexcusable evils of slavery, it does share one feature: slaves did not have voting rights, and nearly every state today deprives citizens of voting rights when incarcerated. Too many states go further and make it virtually impossible to ever vote again, even after serving one’s sentence.
Most NATO nations, including Canada and those in western Europe, do not take away suffrage rights for otherwise-eligible citizens who are incarcerated. It’s even rarer to impose a life-long penalty—one that an affirmative right to vote would likely make much easier to defend, despite political demagoguery surrounding “being tough on crime” to support it and “weak on crime” to advocate for the right to vote.
Several groups have done valuable work on this issue, including the Brennan Center and the Advancement Project. No organization has been so steadfast in elevating the problem as the Sentencing Project, which in 2024 issued this release - one that has troubling data, yet lifts up that advocates of voting rights restoration have made major progress:
“One out of 59 adult citizens – 1.7% of the total U.S. voting eligible population – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. An estimated 4 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by 31% since 2016, as more states enacted policies to curtail this practice and state prison, probation, and parole populations declined. Previous research finds there were an estimated 1.2 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.3 million in 1996, 4.6 million in 2000, 5.1 million in 2004, 5.7 million in 2010, 5.9 million in 2016, 4.9 million in 2020, and 4.4 million in 2022.”
An Expand Democracy priority is to elevate best practices for 21st-century voter guides, as Eveline wrote about last week. We need to be creative in making use of online tools and forms of communication that are compelling and accessible.
That said, anyone who has done an elections-related search has likely come across what I believe is fair to say is one of the most successful voter guide resources we’ve ever had - Ballotpedia. Here’s more about Ballotpedia’s “about us” page:
“Ballotpedia is the digital encyclopedia of American politics, and the nation’s premier resource for unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy. We provide our readers curated content on all levels of U.S. politics that is relevant, reliable, and available for all. In addition, Ballotpedia’s policy content and assets are a gateway to learning about public policy and an unparalleled resource for clear, comprehensive, and factual information on key policy areas. We are firmly committed to neutrality in all our content. As a nonprofit, our mission is to educate. We're here for you when:
Ballotpedia publisher Leslie Graves recently made a compelling case for why it has such a wide reach with the public in the weeks leading up to an election: it’s available as a resource every day of the year. Elections may not come around that often, but questions about past elections, election rules, and your representatives come at any time. Having vetted, comprehensive content creates trust and value. In that spirit, we thank The Fulcrum for its diligent coverage of democracy every week, including often running this publication.
So here’s to Ballotpedia – and for those seeking 21st century voter guides, recognition that its creators are most likely to succeed if regularly a source for people in their community,
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
The United States Capitol Building, the seat of Congress, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Background: What are Congressional Term Limits?
While members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms and U.S. Senators serve six-year terms, all Congresspeople are eligible for re-election indefinitely. As of 2023, U.S. Representatives served an average term of 8.5 years, while U.S. Senators served an average term of 11.2 years.
Congressional term limits are a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the number of terms a member of Congress can legally serve. Under Article V, the Constitution can be amended by either (1) a two-thirds vote of support in both chambers of Congress, or (2) a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states and ratified by three-fourths of all states. Term limits reached their highest level of political salience in the 1990s. In 1992, Arkansas voters attempted to impose term limits on their state’s federal congresspeople via an amendment to their state constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court decided that this amendment was unconstitutional and that states cannot impose term limits on their own federal delegation; the only way to impose congressional term limits is to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Current Attempts to Impose Congressional Term Limits
In 2024, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and enact a three-term limit for Representatives and a two-term limit for Senators. The resolution died in committee. In January 2025, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced a resolutionwith the same provisions. Their proposed amendment was co-sponsored by 17 senators, all of whom are Republicans.
While the constitution has never been amended through a constitutional convention, some states are also taking that approach to impose congressional term limits due to limited success of prior joint resolutions in Congress. Indiana’s State Senate recently voted to approve a resolution calling for a convention to consider term limits. If the Indiana House passes the resolution, Indiana will become the tenth state to call for a constitutional convention, joining Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Arguments In Favor of Congressional Term Limits
The case for congressional term limits centers on the following arguments: (1) Term limits motivate politicians to get more done while in office, (2) Congressional turnover eliminates the incumbent funding advantage, (3) Term limits reduce careerism in politics, and (4) Congressional term limits have widespread support.
One common argument in favor of congressional term limits is that the policy will incentivize politicians to act more efficiently and effectively during their term given the knowledge that they cannot serve indefinitely. Some argue that today, legislators avoid taking immediate action on hot-button issues like immigration and healthcare because they know those issues drive voters to the polls. These proponents argue that congressional term limits would help shift lawmakers’ core objective from winning re-election to creating effective, long-term policy solutions.
Advocates for congressional term limits also express concern that members of Congress are unrepresentative of their constituents, especially in terms of economic status. They highlight that funding has become a barrier to becoming an elected official and that incumbency is often linked with disproportionately high campaign funds, making it difficult for newcomer candidates to win against an incumbent. Proponents of term limits say the policy would reduce this incumbent advantage, leveling the funding playing field every two or three terms so that candidates have more of an equal financial footing heading into their race. Supporters also suggest that term limits could indirectly decrease the role of corporate funders in politics by deterring companies from making major investments in lawmakers who will only hold power for a short period.
Other proponents of congressional term limits argue that the policy would limit careerism in Congress by making room for people with more real-world expertise to service. They highlight that the average duration of time served in Congress has been steadily increasing from 8.9 years to 11 years, arguing this demonstrates that congressional office is viewed as a career plan instead of a post of service. In the absence of indefinite congressional roles, proponents argue, everyday Americans with more recent connections to the job market would have more opportunities than career politicians who are “insulated from the communities they represent.”
Finally, proponents of congressional term limits highlight that the majority of Americans support the policy. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 87% of respondents favored limiting the number of terms one person can serve in congress. A different 2023 study from the Maryland School of Public Policy found support for congressional term limits transcended political party, with 86% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents in favor of the policy.
Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits
The arguments against congressional term limits are primarily built around the three subarguments: (1) Term limits fail to address political corruption, (2) Term limits ignore the value of the incumbency and institutional knowledge, and (3) Frequent congressional turnover shifts power away from the legislative branch.
Some opponents argue that congressional term limits fail to curtail political corruption, and may even worsen the problem. They hold that imposing term limits will cause lawmakers to work more closely with lobbyists for two reasons. First, given that term limits will cause a sharp increase in the number of “freshmen” lawmakers with limited legislative experience, critics argue that more politicians will rely more closely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write or recommend laws to “fill [lawmakers’] own informational and policy gaps.” Second, critics warn that term limits will only exacerbate the “revolving door” phenomenon in which retired legislators seek to maintain political influence by securing careers as lobbyists or private sector government affairs consultants. They cite a 2023 study that found that state governments with term limits saw an increase in the frequency of political corruption events. The study observed a “penultimate effect”, where state legislators under a term limitation devoted more of their last term to securing their personal power than to passing policy. Given that the frequency of last terms will increase significantly under term limit policy, opponents worry about an accompanying increase in political corruption.
Opponents of term limits also argue that the values of political incumbency in the legislative process are taken for granted. They argue that policymaking is a specialized skill that must be developed over time, highlighting examples of how bills with loopholes and contradictions – the result of unskilled policymaking – harm the American public. They hold that incumbency’s value is its ability to maintain legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge. Given that federal policymaking is a skill that can only be learned on-the-job, critics say incumbency gives lawmakers the opportunity to become the specialized professionals their constituents deserve. They also argue that bipartisan partnerships among lawmakers take years to cultivate, and that term limits would hinder cross-party collaboration.
The third core criticism of term limits is that the policy would shift power to the executive and the private sector at the detriment of democracy. As lawmakers are denied longer tenures, opponents argue, lobbyists and staffers become the primary voice of experience in the legislature. Additionally, critics suggest that a decrease in experienced legislators with cross-aisle relationships will further hinder Congress’ ability to efficiently pass legislation, catalyzing an increase in executive orders and other executive branch actions. This will create hurdles to the traditional system of checks and balances.
Conclusion
The debate over congressional term limits is longstanding and complex. While proponents argue that the policy will increase legislative efficacy, decrease corruption, and represent the will of the people, critics worry that it could have a counteractive effect. As the debate continues, countless questions linger. How much do we value incumbency? How are money and careerism intertwined? Is the legislature representative enough? Is legislative efficiency worth risking? After all of those questions have been asked, there is only one question left: Should Americans be for or against congressional term limits?
Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits was originally published by The Alliance for Citizen Engagement and is republished with permission.
Thomas Mosher is a current junior at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire.
At a time when polarization often drowns out nuance, a new report from More in Common titled “Shared Ideals, Divergent Realities” offers a revealing portrait of Americans’ views on democracy in the Trump era. Despite a political climate dominated by division and distrust, the findings underscore a striking and perhaps hopeful truth: Americans across the political spectrum still overwhelmingly support democracy and constitutional norms. The danger lies not in disagreement over those ideals but in our profound divide over who—and what—endangers them.
The report, based on a representative national survey and in-depth qualitative interviews, shows that 63% of Americans—including 69% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats—believe democracy is “definitely the best” form of government for the United States. Over 70% agree the president should always act within the bounds of the Constitution, even if it limits his ability to get things done. These are not small numbers. They reflect shared civic values at a time when such agreement often feels out of reach.
But while Americans agree on the importance of democracy, they diverge sharply on how to apply it—particularly when evaluating the actions of President Trump. For most Democrats, Trump’s return to power signals a clear threat to democratic norms. Nearly 80% believe he aspires to become a dictator. By contrast, 60% of Republicans say it is the courts—not the presidency—that pose the greater threat to democracy. In this mirror-world divide, the same actions are interpreted either as anti-democratic power grabs or as much-needed efforts to root out corruption and inefficiency.
Federal budget cuts by the Trump administration exemplify this split. Most Republicans view them as responsible governance—long overdue trims to bloated bureaucracies. Many Trump voters express genuine frustration with wasteful spending and see the cuts as fulfilling campaign promises. Yet even within the Republican base, some express unease with the execution. They worry about chaos, lack of planning, and unclear criteria. “I agree that some cuts are needed,” one independent Trump voter from Ohio notes, “but not in the haphazard methods deployed at the start.”
Democrats, meanwhile, view the same cuts through a lens of fear and suspicion—seeing them as politically motivated attempts to undermine government capacity and redirect resources to Trump’s allies or private interests. “Many of the cuts have been done as political retaliation,” says one Kamala Harris voter from Connecticut, “just for a headline.”
The research also captures a significant warning signal: overall, Americans are more concerned than confident about the health of democracy under Trump. This concern is strongest among Democrats and Independents, nearly half of whom believe Trump harbors dictatorial ambitions. Even among Republicans, a noteworthy minority—23%—say Congress isn’t doing enough to provide oversight of the executive branch.
And here lies another emerging fault line: the role of Congress. While many Trump-aligned respondents say Congress is acting appropriately or should defer to the president, others from across the spectrum express alarm at legislative passivity. A lack of visible checks and balances, some argue, creates fertile ground for democratic erosion.
This isn’t just about policy; it’s about trust, legitimacy, and the mechanics of governance. Americans of all political stripes want leaders to respect the Constitution and uphold democratic rules—but differ dramatically on who is breaking them and why. These divergent interpretations challenge advocates of democracy reform to move beyond sweeping, partisan warnings and instead speak to shared values and specific concerns. The report urges those working to defend democracy to “focus on moments and issues that evoke bipartisan unease,” rather than blanket condemnations.
In other words, this is not the moment for alarmist rhetoric. It is a moment for precise engagement. Most Americans, even many who support Trump, do not want to throw away the guardrails of our constitutional system. They are not immune to democratic concerns—they just may not see them where others do. That’s not apathy. That’s perspective.
To bridge these realities, we must anchor the pro-democracy movement not just in defending institutions but in listening. We must ask: What do different Americans believe the government should do? What do they fear losing? And how can we meet them in those spaces of shared concern?
The public doesn’t need to be convinced that democracy is worth saving. They already believe it. The challenge is showing—clearly, calmly, and credibly—when and how it’s being undermined. Only then can we shift from abstract ideals to a renewed civic commitment strong enough to weather even the most divergent of realities.
Read the full report atmoreincommonus.org.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge AllianceEducation Fund.
Protesters rally near City Hall during an anti-Trump "No Kings Day" demonstration on June 14, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
On June 16, I joined millions of Americans in cities across the country for a massive civil society event: the “No Kings” protest. Held in response to Donald Trump’s ill-advised military parade in Washington, D.C., the protest spanned hundreds of cities and towns. The scenes from the capital were telling—a thin crowd, damp spectacle, and echoes of past authoritarian pageantry. But the story outside the Beltway was different. What I witnessed—and what countless others experienced—was a grassroots assertion of civic voice and democratic presence.
Though resistance to Trump has taken many forms, the June 14 demonstration was a calm, grassroots protest against his autocratic display. Yet in that collective refusal, something constructive stirred—civil society in motion.
In this final piece of the series, I argue that if civil society’s collapse helped pave the way for Trumpism, then its revival is our best hope for renewal. But rebuilding won’t be easy. And it won’t look like the past. We need a civic infrastructure that works in an era of digital saturation, economic anxiety, and cultural division. That means reimagining how we inform, gather, educate, and organize—not just react.
Before we can rebuild our civic muscle, we must first take honest stock of what’s been lost. Over the past two decades, America’s civic infrastructure has eroded—not with a bang but with a quiet, steady unraveling. Churches have emptied, union halls have shuttered, local newspapers have disappeared, and neighborhood associations have faded. The public square didn’t vanish overnight; it was slowly neglected, hollowed out, and in many places, deliberately dismantled.
Some of this was driven by policy decisions—like disinvestment in public services. Some came from market forces that prioritized profit over community, like the gutting of local news. And some came from culture itself, as individualism and digital distraction edged out civic engagement.
The consequences aren’t abstract. When people no longer have spaces to gather, deliberate, or work through differences, democracy begins to rot from the inside. Trust dissolves. Conspiracies take root. Civic life becomes a performance, not a practice. The real thing was on display in the protests: decentralized, participatory, face-to-face. Trump’s military parade, by contrast, was a top-down attempt to simulate civic spirit through spectacle. Call it civic lite.
Some places still have strong local networks, full of volunteers and community spirit. But far too many Americans live in civic deserts—places without local news, working town halls, or trusted institutions. In rural America especially, the erosion of local infrastructure has left people dependent on cable news, talk radio, and social media—making them more vulnerable to misinformation and political distortion.
We can’t romanticize what’s gone. But we can start reimagining what a civic revival might look like in the world we actually live in.
If the problem is civic decay, the solution has to be civic repair. This requires not only financial support from public and private sources, but also a deeper investment of time and effort by ordinary citizens who choose to engage in their communities.
Start with local news. Cities like Baltimore, with initiatives like The Baltimore Banner, Chicago’s City Bureau and Block Club Chicago, and Fresno’s Fresno land are pioneering nonprofit models that aim to restore public trust and fill the reporting gaps left by shuttered legacy outlets.
Smaller communities are finding their own solutions too. In Davis, California, The People’s Vanguard of Davis has grown into a key source of local news and civic watchdog journalism. Meanwhile, groups like Report for America are placing early-career journalists in underserved communities to strengthen local coverage. It’s not flashy work, but it matters.
We also need better civic education. Not just how a bill becomes a law (Schoolhouse Rock), but how to listen, debate, and participate. Generation Citizen and iCivics are showing how to do this well—especially in communities where disinformation has taken root.
And we need physical spaces—libraries, union halls, community centers. These are the gyms where democracy gets exercised. Some cities are already experimenting with civic festivals, participatory budgeting, and youth organizing hubs.
Government has a role to play, too. Public funding for civic media, infrastructure grants that prioritize local involvement, labor protections that make civic engagement possible. None of this is radical. It’s just the groundwork for democratic life.
Rebuilding civil society in the digital age means confronting the technologies and habits that helped unravel it. Social media promised connection—but delivered outrage, distraction, and division.
But blaming the tools only gets us so far. The deeper challenge is cultural. Voting became the ceiling of engagement instead of the floor. Belonging got outsourced to digital tribes. We forgot how to show up.
That doesn’t mean abandoning the internet. It means using it to convene, not just consume. Civic life today requires hybrid thinking: organizing through screens, but grounding it in face-to-face action. The protests I attended last weekend were a reminder of what this looks like: not perfect agreement, but shared purpose. Not rage for clicks, but solidarity in practice.
If democracy is going to survive this moment, it won’t be because we scrolled harder. It’ll be because we showed up—for each other, for our towns, for the public good.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University. Follow him on LinkedIn.